Let's take a look at this Vox piece vox.com/2018/12/13/181…
Not a single Democrat has proposed socialized medicine (i.e. doctors are employees of the government and hospitals owned by the government) for universal health care, so not a single Democrat has proposed "government-run health care." This is basic stuff, @voxdotcom. 
A "rallying cry on the left"? 52% of Republicans and 70% of Americans want #MedicareForAll. But, I guess "centrists demand Medicare-for-all" doesn't really fit your narrative.
Ugh, I wish journalists wouldn't parrot the silly @AHIPCoverage language of "health plans" (compared to health insurance).
Ugh, again, as usual, journalists treat the biased @KaiserFamFound, which receives funding from @BlueShieldCA, as a neutral voice. It's obvious that not just "really sick" patients would benefit from #MedicareForAll, but also anyone who visits the doctor just a few times a year.
"government-run coverage"?! Really? This isn't an academic term, worthy of "Vox wonks." #MedicareForAll would be a "social insurance program." But, instead of using this correct terminology, @voxdotcom chooses the @AHIPCoverage fear-mongering language of "government-run."
"Some bills require significant tax increases to pay for the expansion of benefits" -- ALTHOUGH RELIEVING PATIENTS OF THE BURDEN OF PAYING MONTHLY INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
(Fixed it for you, @voxdotcom). Be precise, please. Be accurate, please.
(Fixed it for you, @voxdotcom). Be precise, please. Be accurate, please.
Okay, I like this chart, because it raises an important point that even some #MedicareForAll supporters ignore: *government regulating health care prices is essential for any universal health care system,* whether socialized, single-payer, or managed-competition.
This is a must
This is a must
I know the @voxdotcom "wonks" are friends with a lot of @amprog people, but the reality is that @amprog's "Medicare Extra for All" would not guarantee coverage for "all Americans." Please fix your chart, Vox.
Fox the @voxdotcom "wonks" in the back of the room, @amprog's "Medicare Extra for All" *does not* guarantee coverage for all Americans. Please fix your chart! You even admit that it doesn't provide universal coverage in the next paragraph of your piece -- ugh.
This. Is. Not. The. Same. as @SenSanders and @RepJayapal's #MedicareForAll proposal, which would guarantee universal coverage from birth to grave. @amprog has yet to propose a true universal health care program. "Medicare Extra for All" is not universal health care.
This is a good thing! Props to @SenSanders!
If @voxdotcom "wonks" could look outside the provincial hellscape of DC for a second, they might consider it important to note that *no universal health care system* in Europe or the Anglosphere has employers providing major coverage.
If @voxdotcom "wonks" could look outside the provincial hellscape of DC for a second, they might consider it important to note that *no universal health care system* in Europe or the Anglosphere has employers providing major coverage.
In Euro systems where "employers provide health insurance," it's just a supplementary plan for stuff like massage treatments and private hospital rooms -- *doing universal health care,* whether through single-payer or managed-competition, means eliminating job-based coverage!
Those "universal health care plans" -- note the air quotes! -- that try and preserve so-called "coverage at work" are really just plans designed to protect the private health insurance industry's very profitable business processing claims for "self-insured" businesses.
.@voxdotcom using "@AHIPCoverage lobbyist language" again: "one big government health care plan."
No, #MedicareForAll isn't "a government health care plan," just like we don't usually refer to public schools as "government schools." It's social insurance or public insurance!
No, #MedicareForAll isn't "a government health care plan," just like we don't usually refer to public schools as "government schools." It's social insurance or public insurance!
Yay for calling it a "public insurance plan"! (And not "government insurance.")
But, yikes: @voxdotcom "wonks" fail to note that a Medicare buy-in plan would probably be a lot more expensive than private health insurance plans designed to appeal to healthy people alone.
But, yikes: @voxdotcom "wonks" fail to note that a Medicare buy-in plan would probably be a lot more expensive than private health insurance plans designed to appeal to healthy people alone.
The problem with "Medicare buy-in," instead of #MedicareForAll, is that private health insurers will try to suck off the healthy and young into "cheaper" private plans, which will inflate the cost of the "Medicare buy-in" and reduce overall system efficiency.
Germany's "managed-competition" policy, to some degree, has this problem where affluent younger/healthier people can "opt out" for private health insurance plans -- generally "cheaper" than the public option for the employed -- and this raises overall costs in the health system.
The @voxdotcom "wonks" should acknowledge that "Medicare buy-in" isn't as simple as "some people who hate Aetna get Medicare" and "people who love Aetna can keep their job-based insurance." There are big policy shortfalls present.
Love the "Choose Medicare Act" where -- wait for it! -- *your boss* gets to decide if you can pick Medicare instead of private insurance. How much you wanna bet private insurers will find a way to bribe/nudge big employers into blocking their staff from "choosing Medicare"?!
Can @voxdotcom please remind folks that the most profitable business for @AHIPCoverage health insurers is *self-insured large corporations and businesses.* The "CHOICE Act" should be called the "Aetna-Protection Act," because it protects the lucrative self-insured business.
There's no "CHOICE" in a policy that doesn't give staff at large firms the "choice" to pick Medicare, because the government wants to protect the very profitable business of private health insurance companies processing claims (i.e. pushing paper) for self-insured businesses.
"Medicare X" is also 💩. Again, staff at large firms are blocked from "choosing Medicare," because policymakers -- bought and paid for by @AHIPCoverage insurers -- want to protect the highly profitable business of insurance companies processing claims for large self-insured firms
.@amprog's non-universal "Medicare Extra for All" policy is better than the "buy-in" proposals, because all babies would be enrolled in Medicare at birth, but still mirrors the inefficiencies of the German managed-competition system by depriving the public system of enrollees.
.@UrbanInstitute's terrible proposal should be called the "Universal Health Care Avoidance Act," because any plan that seeks to minimize loss of job-linked coverage fails to make significant progress towards universal health care. (This repeats the failed logic of the ACA!)
The fact that 70% of Americans support a #MedicareForAll health care system suggests that, contrary to conventional "Very Serious wonk" wisdom, most Americans are *NOT* happy with their employer-linked insurance plans.
The poll that found 70% of Americans support a #MedicareForAll health care system is probably pretty accurate. thehill.com/policy/healthc…
Expanding and improving an existing (popular) program is a very logical approach to "doing universal health care"!
Expanding and improving an existing (popular) program is a very logical approach to "doing universal health care"!
Yes, @voxdotcom, but all health care proposals involving Medicare are not created equal. Existing Medicare has a lot of problems (i.e. deductibles, no cap on costs, donut hole, etc.)
Only @SenSanders' #MedicareForAll proposal explicitly details how Medicare will be *IMPROVED.*
Only @SenSanders' #MedicareForAll proposal explicitly details how Medicare will be *IMPROVED.*
While a "Medicaid buy-in" policy would likely offer *better coverage* via Medicaid than private health insurance, it's likely the "Medicaid buy-in" plan would still be more expensive than private options, because private insurers would simply compete with cheap junk insurance.
"Buy-in plans," which leave an immoral and unethical private insurance industry intact to undermine the public programs, are unfair to taxpayers, because they don't create the efficiencies of a #MedicareForAll #SinglePayer program.
(Private health insurers need to go! Period.)
(Private health insurers need to go! Period.)
Yes, @SenSanders' plan *expands Medicare to everyone and improves Medicare for everyone.*
Important to refer to it as "expanded and improved #MedicareForAll."
Important to refer to it as "expanded and improved #MedicareForAll."
We arrive at the part of the explainer where @voxdotcom displays its ignorance of European health care systems. Does anyone want to tell Vox how cheap doctor's appointments are in France? And how most patients have supplemental plans that make them free?
25% of €30 is €7.5! It's fine to acknowledge some European countries have co-pays and cost-sharing, but it's important to qualify this as "MINIMAL co-pays or cost-sharing." Look at this article about "more expensive" French doctor's visits thelocal.fr/20170915/some-…
It's also important to note, and @voxdotcom fails to do this, that the young, old, and chronically ill mostly pay $0 for health care and drugs in European health care systems with cost-sharing. Gluten-intolerant patients even get food vouchers in Italy and the UK!
Hidden towards the end, @voxdotcom makes an important point that they should have put much higher in their story: private health insurance companies are less efficient than public insurance programs, because they waste money on profits for Wall Street and CEO salaries!
This @voxdotcom piece isn't truly awful, but it fails to acknowledge a major trade-off with "buy-in" proposals is a less efficient and more expensive health care system, because private health insurers -- rent-seeking parasites -- are allowed to maintain an unnecessary role.
Thanks for reading.
